More Mayhem & Death At Wal-Mart

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
I think the big point most people are missing is that he ALLEGEDLY stole the items. Obviously the vast majority didn't bother reading the article, and are just going on the OP. I've tripped the alarm at Walls*Mart many times, simply 'cause the cashier forgot to demagnetize an item. The article doesn't state details, so no one can say whether the man was 'some poor fella' or a 'lifetime petty thug'. Save your assumptions. Stick to the facts. Fact is, a small group restrained a single individual for a perceived crime, wich resulted in the individuals death. One can (and has) argued both sides of whether or not the group had a right to do what they did. But I think I have to agree with the one poster that said it simply wasn't in their job descriptions to do so. People keep coming back to the 400 dollars worth of stuff. I have to wonder just what it was he stole. Most of the expensive items are under lock-and-key. So it was most likely a bunch of petty housewares items and things? Like I said, the devils' in the details, and unfortunately we don't have all of those. So I don't think anyone is qualified to speculate on the tragedy (or lack thereof) of this situation. I really would've liked a more thorough article on this, perhaps then some of the posters attitudes and opinions would be validated (or not, as the case may be).

Chrono

This is the key to the story.
Your innocent until proven guilty. Now he's dead and thoose involved should now see the law.,

I am not here to argue, I am here to discuss Ethic's and freedom.

Some people belive that if they "Win" an argument at what ever cost of moral value of the statement, that this is somehow fulfilling.
That's senseless and your a direct bi-product of the enviroment if thats how you are.
Lets promote truth, honesty, freedom of speech, and love
We must FIGHT for human rights everyday, or more will vanish everyday

reply to post by Jb0311NY


Oh no I agree with you wholeheartedly. There should be a consequence. Only in a very limited span would I consider someone's death a legitimate one. And this doesn't fall into that realm. I have to wonder how I would react in this situation. If I had stolen the goods, and it wasn't simply a mistake, then if caught, I would have probably surrendered. If it was a mistake and a group of people tried to tackle me to the ground, then they better bring their lunch, know what I mean?

Chrono

Originally posted by Kords21
Walmart junk isn't worth getting killed for.

evidently, a vast number of people do not hold that opinion.

-

Originally posted by TheBorg
My big question here is simply this: Why are so many here in favor of allowing people to steal from a company without getting any punishment at all, when there should be at least jail-time as a punishment?

Can you point to all these people? I'm not seeing people who think that shoplifters shouldn't be 'punished at all'. I'm seeing a "many" people here raising questions over why there's no legal case to be heard at all regarding the death (despite the autopsy report) , I'm seeing speculation about the mentality of these and other Wal*Mart workers, there's comments on 'corporatism' and capitalism and the value of goods against human life.

However, I'm not seeing much, if anything, on what you're claiming here.

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
[

Florida resident Patrick Donovan, 53, died over $393 in Wal-Mart merchandise, lying face down in the giant retailer's parking lot last week.

The Wal-Mart workers and one bystander held Donovan down, while one leaned on his back and another held down his arms and head. The police report says they told Donovan to stop fighting, and asked witnesses to call 911. By the time Donovan had stopped struggling, he had died


This is the problem with restraining somebody face down, it is also known as positional asphyxiation. I work in a secure unit and once we have taken a patient to the ground we have to roll them on their fronts within three minutes. This was after lessons learned from restraints such as Rocky Bennett who died in this manner, whilst in custody.

Originally posted by ATS4dummies
Wait a second:

1) 53 year old Guy tries to Steal
2) Gets caught stealing
3) uses all of his energy to evade and escape from being caught
4) dies as a result of his:
a) unethical behavior
b) unwillingness to take resposibility for his actions he KNOWS are wrong

I don't see any problem here at all.
In fact, I'd say the world is now a better place as a result.

Flame away, but some people just have no concept of ethical behavior.




In essence, you're suggesting that it's okay to kill someone for if they do something that enough people disagree with.
I see stuff like this and I'm always reminded of my favorite universal truth: Anything you say about someone else, you say about yourself.

Originally posted by TheBorg
What's amazing to me even more now is that I've seen many people in wal-marts getting stopped for theft by the store's security personnel, and they fight back. What is one to do when the criminals fight back? Let them take the merchandise and run away? That's not an option.

TheBorg

Merchandise is worth violence and possible death? Wow...

At the end of the day, if you support the employees'/bystanders' actions, then you support murder.

If you support the departed's actions, then you support what? Stealing, supposedly? This is what he ALLEGEDLY did. Even if it was...I'll support stealing over murder any day.

shop smart shop s-mart,
but no in all serioouness, besides the movey quote..local shoping is better, allways..and it makes you feel better knowing where you mony whent.

Originally posted by newgeneric
At the end of the day, if you support the employees'/bystanders' actions, then you support murder.

If you support the departed's actions, then you support what? Stealing, supposedly? This is what he ALLEGEDLY did. Even if it was...I'll support stealing over murder any day.

Prove that they murdered the guy. Fact is, you can't. They even told the guy to stop struggling - it wasn't like they were yelling obscenities at the guy. They were doing their jobs, trying to stop a shoplifter who was clearly in the wrong. The 53-year old man caused his own death. While it's a tragedy, he's got no one else but himself to blame.

They didn't kill this guy on purpose, unless you can prove otherwise. The guy was committing a crime, and they did what they thought was right and necessary to stop him.

I think most of the outcry around this issue is because it deals with a large corporation like Wal-Mart.

What if this were a man who had broken into a home and attempted to rob it. The homeowner caught the man and attempted to hold him down until police arrived. In the process, the thief dies as a result of his struggling. Pretty much the same situation, yet I don't think half as many people would be upset.

In fact, they would be praising the homeowner.

reply to post by Jb0311NY

Originally posted by Jb0311NY
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Snatching an old lady's purse is a felony, with assault and in my earlier post I tried to describe the rightful use of escalation of force.

Which brings up yet another point: how many among us know the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?

Definitions of whether an act is a F or M vary from state to state. Witness marijuana laws.

How can we hold the public accountable to such a standard?

reply to post by Chronogoblin

Originally posted by Chronogoblin
reply to post by Jb0311NY

 

Oh no I agree with you wholeheartedly. There should be a consequence. Only in a very limited span would I consider someone's death a legitimate one. And this doesn't fall into that realm. I have to wonder how I would react in this situation. If I had stolen the goods, and it wasn't simply a mistake, then if caught, I would have probably surrendered. If it was a mistake and a group of people tried to tackle me to the ground, then they better bring their lunch, know what I mean?

Chrono

I would calmly surrender in either case. My tough guy fighting days are behind me; I only have a couple left inside me, and I'm saving them.

I would warn you up front that if you detain me, you had better be right.

I don't understand why any of the participants need "support," or lack thereof.

Mr. Donovan decided to shoplift. Had he been innocent, why wouldn't he have calmly stated his case and showed his receipt? The fact that he tried to evade apprehension and then struggled indicates to me that he was guilty. He is personally responsible for his choices and his actions. Perhaps the consequences he ended up with were too severe for the crime, but he was old enough to know that shoplifting has its risks.

The employees and the bystander are also personally responsible for their actions and choices, and it will be / is up to our legal system to determine what their consequences should be. They also assumed personal risk when they decided to detain and restrain Mr. Donovan, since, as has been noted more than once, Walmart employees are NOT supposed to take such action according to company policy.

What we have here is four people who made some poor choices and have received (or will receive) the consequences for their actions. It doesn't make Walmart a bad company, and I don't see any good guys here either.

I am a 51 year old overweight woman, and I can (and have) restrain a strapping young adolescent male who is in a fit of rage without either harming him or allowing him to harm me. Granted, I have received training to do that because of where I work, but I still think that three adults could have restrained a 53 year old man without killing him had they been a little less aggressive.

This whole discussion (or much of it) is a symptom of a larger problem in our modern society. When people make mistakes or bad choices, we collectively start looking for someone or something (bigger) to blame or hold responsible. The simple truth is, people make mistakes and bad choices, and sometimes they suffer exaggerated consequences for their mistakes. It should remind us to assess the risks associated with the choices we make more carefully, not send us looking for something or someone to blame.

as a former walmart employee. it is a fact that most of walmart's theft is due to the employees. at my store 6 stock boys has stolen thousands of dollars of stuff. THey take expensice items and put them in boxes of cheaper items and their friends would come in and buy the cheap item. THen bring back the expensive item for cash. sometimes they would take tv's to the front of the store and just follow a customer out to the parking lot like they were helping them out. it was amazing stupidity by the walmart management.

reply to post by ATS4dummies


No where did it say that the man was indeed steeling. It only says that they SUSPECTED he was steeling. I know that on more than one occasion where I have been at walmart, I have been at the checkouts and seen people walking through the sensors only to have them go off and after an inspection from the greeter, all it ends up being in the end is that the cashier missed one of the security tags so how do we know it wasn't simply that?

reply to post by drwizardphd


They 'thought' he was a shoplifter. Most likely he just walked out without showing the door nazi his receipt.

I find it very very interesting that there are people who are defending what the walmart employee's and bystander did. There are too many unknown variables to determine whether they had a right to even detain the man. There has to be some sort of proof of wrong doing in order to detain a person except in very very extreme situations and I don't thin that mistimeener theft would be one of those situations. It is only alledged that he stole, not proved and they have not said why they suspect him of steeling (did they see it first hand, on camera, was he just acting strange or did the stupid alarm at the front that ALWAYS go off go off?).

I also know for a fact that Wal-Mart's own rules state that they are not to touch a suspected shoplifter. They are only suppose to observe, get as much detail as possible and then notify the proper autorities. I actually know someone who was fired from WAL-MART because they subdued a shoplifter (without killing him and my friend is a petite girl).

IF he was stealing (and that's a big IF), then we have two wrongs here. I however find that his death at the hands of Wal-Mart employees who obviously did not have the proper training for detaining people is the greater of the two injustices. It doesn't even state that the employee's were security personel. For all we know, they could have just been the guy's who go around and collect the carts from the parking lot.

If it would have been a police officer, there would have been an investigation to see whether excessive force was used so why shouldn't there be an investigation into this. I would say that four people holding down one man was excessive unless someone can prove to me that he was on some sort of drug or in a different state of mind and had exceptional strength.

Even then, the employee's are in the wrong in my opinion as they are NOT suppose to intervene physically according to their own company rules.

reply to post by Merriman Weir

Merriman, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Theft falls right through the financial statement, and is directly taken from the profits. Those who steal goods from a store where they have profit sharing, reduce the amount of money those employees will gain.

In fact, Wal-Mart, nor any other retailer actually pays for theft. We do. We, the consumers pay higher prices to compensate for theft in order to maintain a healthy profit margin.

So, I really don't care if they shoot thieves. I find a thief in my house, and that is exactly what I'll do, and we're not going to sit around discussing it.

And no, he won't be around later to sue me either. Only one side of the story is going to be told, and that's going to be mine.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by dooper]